"paul packer" wrote in message


In fact I've tried most tweaks and got
nothing out of them. I did find in turntable days that
the right mat could improve smoothness and depth--I
definitely heard that. And I found that damping the lid
of a Sony CD player improved the sound quite remarkably,
though damping the lid of a NAD player made no difference
at all.

Do you see where I'm going here, Arnie?

Pual, you're going your own way, science be damned.

What I'm saying
is that I take things as I find them.

Yes Paul, you're a poster boy for naive perception.

Some tweaks may work.

1,000 monkeys typing for 1,000 years...

Some may only work with certain products in certain
circumstances. But there are no hard and fast rules.

Dooooh!

Some high end stuff probably isn't as good as its budget
equivalent. Some is no doubt much better, but probably
only good value to the idle rich. The thing is, once you
adopt a position like, "All properly operating, like
measuring amps will sound the same,"

And Paul, fools like you don't realize that this statement
is a truism, and get all bent out of shape.

you rule out any
possibility of discovering otherwise, or even listening
for it.

Arrogant twaddle. I've probably spent more time trying to
rationally discover otherwise than 99.99% of all
audiophiles.

Your view then becomes a creed to be defended
rather than a voyage of discovery.

More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has highly
limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking Paul that
maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ is not a
really good indicator, but your inability to see the more
obvious subtlties of the situation point in that direction.

George is right with
the "Borg" nomenclature in the sense that Borgs have no
independent thought;

George hates truely independent thought - look at his posse.

they merely propound and defend the
aims and tenets of the Hive, and try to make new Borgs.

There you go Paul, you've adopted Goerge's
junior-high-school name-calling tactics for your own life's
work.

I reject ABX because whenever I've done A/B testing at
home
I've never detected more than a subtle difference even
between favourite equipment and stuff I couldn't stand to
listen to.

So Paul, based on your inability to do sensitive, reliable
listening tests, you blame the methodology not your
ego-centric implementation of it.

Alternatively Paul, you take a noisy, inherently
unreliable, and above all ego-centric standard, and use it
to judge the rest of the universe. This is a proven
methodology for making big mistakes like deciding that the
earth is flat.

So taking account of the many mysteries of
life with which I was already acquainted, I made the not
unreasonable assumption that another was at work here,
that some kind of psychological or auditory masking
effect was taking place which I would be wise to avoid in
future.

Lack of introspection and inability to take responsibility
for your own actions, noted.

I thus recurred to comparing equipment by simply
playing a favourite piece at length, by which method I
was able to make sensible and lastingly satisfactory
choices.

That would be: Sensible and lastingly satisfactory choices
based on highly questionable information gathering and
illogical decision-making.

I accept that ABX has its uses in industry and
commerce, but it certainly does not determine which
product one is wisest to spend one's money on, and never
will.

Inability to separate out the fact that sound quality is not
the only thing that ratioinal people base their choices on,
noted.

Here endeth the lesson. We will now sing Hymn 43.....

I feel like I just interviewed the Pope...